Recession: Did it Ever Go Away?

The BBC trumpets that recession is to return to Europe, but in all honesty with a growth figure in tiny fractions of one percent did we ever leave recession? After all the positive growth figures bandied about over the past two years are so low that negative growth (i.e. recession) is not that far away.

Of course its politically expedient to err on the high side and tip the figures just ever so slightly positive, which for the statisticians technically keeps us out of recession.

But has any of us felt or will feel in future the benefit of growth measured in fractions of a percent? Not really.

For the pedants out there I know that growth went slightly over 1% in Q2 of 2010, but that was the only time since Q1 2008 it climbed that high. In fact in Q4 of the same year growth went negative, but luckily it bounced back to a wondrous 0.4 percent the next quarter, thus avoiding the technical definition of a recession.


And boy aren't those of us in retail feeling every rise and dip... In fact the ONS growth figures match virtually quarter for quarter the retail trading conditions we've seen over the past couple of years.

UK in Global Chart Slump

The UK economy has now dropped to 7th in the world after being overtaken by Brazil.

Another of the things I've been banging on about is the UK actually taking notice of their place in the world and cutting their cloth accordingly. Our economy is on the way down and we need to plan our finances on that future prospect and plan forward, not hanging on to the glory of the past.

In the end, if we continue expenditure at the same rate as before, all we end up with is a lot of debt and a shrinking economy unable to pay it off. A bit like the scenario we're already in, in fact.

Time to face reality and time once and for all for the UK to reinvent itself.

The Age of the Gang?

As 2011 gasps its last breath, perchance are we witnessing the agenda being set for 2012?

The past couple of days have been particularly bad for stabbings and shootings. Now there's no evidence as yet that these are gang related crimes, but they are most certainly youth oriented.

What is most obvious point here, but one that will be missed by a country mile by the mass media, is that the prohibition on the possession of knives by youths and guns by everybody is most definitely not working.

Despite the severe restrictions on gun and knife ownership, both types of crime continue to grow and are now moving from the underclass ghettos, onto the previously unsullied corporate-dominated high streets.

Its obvious that the current policy isn't working, but I wouldn't bet that those in charge of such policy making will understand the fact. Expect ever more draconian, unworkable and unenforceable laws this year once the "enquiries" and committees have used up countless resources coming to the wrong conclusion.

Journalism at Its Worst

This piece on the BBC website purporting to be news is probably the worst piece of journalism I've seen, ever.

Actually the name for it is "Churnalism", where propaganda or press release is regurgitated verbatim as news.

How else would the article state that "Low Carbon technology will not Mean Big Bill Rises"? As we know, any charge made upon the generating companies such as being forced to pay for carbon credits is instantly passed on to the consumer. With feed in tariffs for the wind farms adding to the cost for the consumer as well, its a spurious claim that green technology doesn't add to the cost of energy.

Unless of course you think like the weasel-wordy PR-men. Then you realise the important part of the phrase above is "technology". Yes, possibly the technology on its own may not add to the cost (but to be honest the huge cost of building offshore windfarms in my mind still negates the phrase.), but what the statement is saying is blame the government: in other words, the technology isn't expensive (yeah, right), but its the government legislation that is adding to the cost.

Like I said, its journalism at its worst: PR passed off as news. The BBC should be ashamed.

Tooling Up for Trouble?

I get the sense that future riots are not only possible, but actually inevitable. It looks like the government agencies are of the same opinion, because it seems they're tooling up and acquiring resources to combat large-scale rioting and protect buildings or areas that may attract public disorder.

A couple of weeks ago Pavlov's Cat blogged about the Met's Steel Wall. A device to cordon off areas of cities with a proper steel cordon. A true almost impenetrable "Ring of Steel", complete with secure slits which I imagine will be used to project weapons from.

Another device the Police are now trailing is a laser gun that can temporarily blind protesters. Non-lethal maybe, but yet another ramping up of  the arms race between Police and protesters. I assume the auto-dimming welding mask will overtake the "V for Vendetta" mask as the de-rigueur  headwear of future confrontations.

As Pavlov's Cat notes, that such things exist is scary. This nation was founded on the principle of democracy, free speech, freedom of expression and the freedom to protest against any and all, including the highest in the land. For they are our servants, not our masters. We place them in the privileged positions they occupy and they owe us for that honour, we do not owe them the honour of placing them there.

It seems our government have come to the conclusion that many bloggers have: that peaceful, democratic means will not be enough in future to restore democracy to our country. Like the Arabs this year, there will come a point that the people realise violence is the only answer, the only means by which we can regain the freedom that has been taken away from us.

They are preparing for it. It may make protests more difficult, but inevitably the common people will prevail, against this elitist Political cabal, just as we did centuries ago against an elitist monarchy.

Scaredy Dave Knee-Jerks Europe Closer to Oblivion?

David Cameron yesterday vetoed a new treaty on EU fiscal stability, which would have allowed EU oversight of the financial dealings of member states. Or so we are told.

EU Referendum has done much to explain that there wasn't actually a veto available, which is commendable, but there is also a point that is missed.

Why exactly did Dave do what he did and in turn bring about the condemnation of Europe and even the U.S administrations?

I can only attribute it to two things: a slavish desire to please his masters and chums in the City of London and blind panic at the thought of being yet another Tory Prime Minister becoming embroiled in the political minefield that is Europe.

I can understand a desire to keep his chums in the gainful legal robbery and excessive bonuses that characterises life in the financial heart of London. After all one has to keep an eye out for future employment opportunities once one has left public office, what?

Whether he should have been so blatant is moot. Maybe he should have moved with more political cunning and skill, but to be honest politically he's a lightweight and happen as not he was probably outmanoeuvred by the more savvy political players in Europe.

The bad news is he really has fucked up big time. You know that's the case when even the Americans are looking across the pond tutting and shaking their heads.

What next? Well, if I know the political establishment in the UK, we will have to go crawling back to Europe, proffer abject apologies, roll over and play nice doggy (please let me stay) rather than stick two fingers up to them and go our own way. Huge concessions will have to be granted to the EU commission, not on City trading, that's still probably sacrosanct, but probably on fiscal oversight of governmental budgets and high street banking. I wouldn't be surprised if that old chestnut EU-wide taxation was thrown in for good measure.

Actually lets lump them all in together: a prediction would be to allow the EU's transaction tax, but to make it only liable on high street banking transactions, not on investment banking.

In other words, we get screwed for more tax. Again.

When it Comes to Tax, Make the Rules Up as You Go Along.

This report from the BBC is interesting.

Shops in New York have sprung up selling lose tobacco and tubes to place it in so you can smoke it as a cigarette. The shops also provide rolling machines to allow clients to place the tobacco into the tubes.
"The authorities" are losing tax on this, because they impose a levy on pre-made, pre-packaged cigarettes. The roll-you-own shops don't pay the levy because they don't sell pre-packaged cigarettes: they just provide a way for the customer to produce themselves something that is similar, but not the same as pre-packaged cigarettes. Thus as all good entrepreneurs, they exploit a loophole left by the authorities.

A lawyer for the authorities trying to claw back tax from these shops is quoted as saying "No one would claim that Ikea is not selling furniture just because the clients have to assemble that". But then again, if the authorities put a levy on pre-assembled furniture and left flat-pack stuff tax free, I'm damn sure there'd be lots of shops springing up to help assemble that flat-pack stuff.

The crux is that the tobacco shops are not producing the cigarettes nor are they packaging them, they are only providing the means for the customer to DIY.

But a good lawyer never lets the letter of the law get in the way: any law can be stretched by twisting its words. Especially when tax is concerned.

Witness the horrendous injustices meted out to UK smokers at the hands of our own Customs/Border Agency.

For the record, I'm not a smoker, but I can recognise injustice and blind greed when I see it.

Whatever Happened top the Treaty Lock?

The BBC proclaim that David Cameron "may" not sign a reworked treaty designed to to solve the Euro crisis.

I really hate this sort of sloppy journalism. Its the BBC at its worst and I've noticed of late that Radio4's finest are also slipping journalistically.

So lets set things straight...

First thing: Dave is such a spineless fucker, there's zero chance of him refusing to do anything the EU commission, Merkel, Sarkozy want him to do. In fact the only people the mendacious twat habitually ignores is the British voting public. Twice he's refused a referendum on EU membership. Twice. Remember that.

Second, Dave loves going back on any and all promises he makes to the UK voting public, because he loves rubbing your fucking faces in it. He's top dog, an elitist public school knobjockey that sees all you grubby voters as inconsequential. So, you all bought his promise of a referendum lock, you gullible mugs. Nothing could be further from his smug mug when his apparatchiks release stuff like this to the press.

I'll spell it out for you: he will do whatever the EU want and no matter how far from any original treaty the amendments get, no matter how much like a brand new treaty it will look, no matter how much of our money, wrested from us by force will be promised to the European sinkhole, you will not be allowed any form of democratic vote on it.

Considering what's happened in Greece and Italy, count yourself lucky you have a government that looks something like a democratically elected representative assembly.

Even though it is nothing of the sort.

Carry on kidding yourself.

Whatever Happened to Stealth Taxes?

Remember stealth taxes? You know, the taxes that Labour introduced like airport tax, pension tax, insurance tax, etc?

Yep, those taxes that the Tories were up in arms about every time a new one was introduced.

Well, have any been repealed in the 18 months that the coalition have been in power? Has the tax burden been eased in order to allow the economy to bounce back a little?

Nope.

So all that indignation while the Tories were in opposition was act then was it?

Seems that way.

Because if they were so heinous at the time, why haven't the Tories repealed all of them?

Loss of Control Sparks EU Power Plays

I've held the view since the economic crisis first started that it may turn out to be bigger than governments.

I've been proved right as successive governments around the world have sunk hundreds of billions of pounds into the banking system and their own economies, only to fail miserably to turn things around.

Nothing, repeat nothing, they have done has turned the ship around. It may have deflected its path by a few degrees, but despite the colossal amounts of money, we are still in recession, we are still massively in the red and  we have yet to see any growth.

Lets remember that the crisis started back in 2007, four years ago. At the time many said it was an aberration, a blip, likely to be limited to one or two banks.

But here we are years later, trillions of pounds later and no result.

I do think that governments have finally understood they have lost control and given up. I get the undercurrent from the various EU posturing that the gig is up: governments don't have a clue what to do to save the Euro and the game has now moved on.

There are a number of  political dramas being played out across the EU. The first being closer integration of a core of EU countries. Behind closed doors I'm pretty sure its acknowledged that some countries will leave the Euro and things have moved on to political positioning to be top dog of the smaller core Euro zone. Despite talking of repatriating power back to the UK Parliament, David Cameron is negotiating exactly the opposite. He wants to be fully integrated, paid up member of what will effectively become the EU's equivalent of the UN security council. A core bloc of countries that will control, manage and police the outlying EU countries.

That this manoeuvring is going on behind closed doors is clear by the other strands being played out. The current distraction strand, chiefly which is the bust-up with Iran. Good for distracting the proles as governments do their damnedest to word and re-word new treaties to not look like new treaties, but amendments to existing treaties. Thereby avoiding the triggering of referendums and an outbreak of democracy across the EU. However, the affect of these not-treaties will be a new EU, with a new management in charge.

The final clue to these behind closed door manoeuvrings is the indecent haste and effort with which the senior members of the EU commission have tried to get involved in it all. We've had Barrosso sticking his oar in for weeks and being ignored as the Power shifts towards Merkel and Sarkozy. Now Baroness Ashton has ramped up the noise and sense of self-imposed importance by commenting publicly on the UK's diplomatic spat with Iran, urging other EU countries to get involved. The "don't forget we're still here" undertones of her timing can not be ignored.

There is the possibility of a new Europe being forged here and if successful, could emerge slimmer, fitter and more competitive if it ditches the over-expensive, overbearing and overtly corrupt EU commission.

Shock-Horror, it could be a Europe that some current Euro-sceptics could embrace.

A Catalyst?

Something is going to happen now the woman allegedly making racist remarks to people on a tram has been arrested.

I think this could turn out to be a catalyst: for good or bad, I don't know, but when you get opposite forces poles apart like this, there's bound to be trouble.

Predictable Recession Predicted at Last.

It seem that financial forecasters are finally predicting what I said 2 years ago: that we would have a double dip recession.

To be honest its as plain as the nose on your face: as long as there is uncertainty then there will be no growth, no growth, no recovery.

Either we face decades of uncertainty and neutral growth, or we ditch the toxic bank debt overboard.

And finally, we don't pay through the nose to dump the debt: the banks bought it, let them suffer the consequences. Its not like there aren't enough solvent banks to pick up the slack. Just let'em sink or swim without government and taxpayer help.

Quick, clean, clinical. lets get back to growth and prosperity without having a several decade debt Albatross hanging round our necks.

ClimateGate 2.0

A second tranche of ClimateGate emails were released this week.

One of the main themes in the emails is the arrogance of the climate science cabal and their disdain for other scientists and observers asking to scrutinise their data and verify their  findings.

The one thing that will settle this supposedly settled science once and for all is for the climate cabal to make all their data and their calculations public.

Its time to put up or shut up.

The longer they refuse to enter into fully transparent exchanges with their critics, the increasingly unsound their science looks. The initial ClimateGate email release was an ideal opportunity to release their data and prove their theory. Instead we got a whitewash. Their refusal to engage in public debate if nothing else proves their lack of confidence in their findings.

Remember that oft used phrase "Nothing to hide, nothing to fear"? It applies here.

Just what are the climate cabal afraid of? Do they fear being exposed as the con artists their detractors think they are? If their data and findings were logical, repeatable and provable, then there would be no argument.

Is EU Fragmentation on the Cards?

I said many months ago that the Eurozone would have to release Greece in order to ensure stability.

When Italy became a victim, the Euro became even more dodgy.

Now that Germany has caught a touch of the virus spreading through Europe and its bond auction has failed, you know that something drastic WILL happen.

As long as Germany could shovel Euros into the ECB and the IMF and (like our government) the cost of propping up the Euro could be hidden from the German taxpayers and voters by keeping it remote, things could continue.
Now German finances are directly affected, there is no hiding it and you just know that radical moves to distance Germany from the mire will start to be put in place.

Could the rockier economies be ditched to save German finances? Or could plans get even more drastic?

December should be an interesting month.

Party Political Tax Grab

So, as Political Parties are losing membership and now think its a good idea to subsidise themselves using taxpayer's money.

Where the fuck did that make sense? What the fuck makes them a special case? And who exactly says which political parties get what money? Are we really saying its just for the big boys, or will smaller parties like the BNP get funded by the taxpayer? To my mind its a ludicrous idea.

I mean, if Political Parties are becoming (as they are) less democratic, then its obvious they will be less relevant to the ordinary people and will lose supporters and members.

Tough shit if they cease to exist: its natural selection, survival of the fittest. If they are no longer relevant, no longer democratic, no longer represent the voice of the people, then they don't deserve to exist. They should go the way of any other organisation that lives off private donations and doesn't get public support.

There is absolutely no reason they should be allowed to ransack the public purse. There is no god-given right for them to exists at taxpayer's expense.

Instead, why the fuck don't they do what other successful organisations do and change to become more relevant to their current and former supporters? Then they might get donations again.

The fact is they're so cut off from the reality they think robbing the public and carrying on ignoring us is an excellent plan. And these are the people we vote into office. The very people that have no morals, no compunction about voting themselves pay rises while the public suffer deprivation and see no wrong in planning to rob the public purse while ignoring the public voice.

Oxygen thieves the fucking lot of them.

You see the problem is we have no ability to sack them mid-term using political means. The only way to get them out of office is apolitical: we use violence and rule of force. There really is no other way. Once the public cross that rubicon and truly understand the situation, just as the Arabs did last summer, things should get really interesting.

Anti-Democratic

I'm amazed the people of Italy aren't on the streets baying for blood.

Apparently Mario Monte has announced a cabinet comprised entirely of technocrats. In other words a cabinet, a complete government comprised entirely of unelected officials.

I take it that's a model taken from the EU commission, a model in this "post-democratic age" that we are going to see more and more. By the way, has anyone noticed this phrase "post-democratic age" being bandied about? In it's literal meaning, it means after democracy. So therefore for us to be in a post-democratic age we therefore have to be living in an age where democracy no longer exists....

So do Politicians who use it really believe that democracy is a thing of the past, something the people aren't to be trusted with? Because if someone who represents me in any capacity and who's wages I paid said I no longer had the power to hire and fire them, I'd be a bit peeved to say the least. More likely I'd be shoving my boot up their arse and firing them.

Any member of Parliament that utters the phrase or agrees with its sentiments in my opinion no longer has the authority to stay in that position. People from this country died to uphold democracy, it is not something we should lose.

Local Government Waste

I'm sure the good burghers of Bradford love the idea of their city centre water park, but it looks to me to be a colossal waste of money.

All it'll take is the first kid with a bottle of washing up liquid to turn the site into a foamy mess and have it shut down.

Since I moved to Portsmouth I've often been regaled about the fountain on Commercial Road and how huge globs of foam used to be blown past the shops after kids had dumped their pound-shop purchase into the fountain's base. The good news is it takes a while to happen, so you add your washing up liquid, retire to a safe distance (usually to McDonalds for a burger) and then return later to admire your foamy handiwork.

In Bradford there's a bigger lake and a taller fountain: I just wonder how much foam will be created by all that churning action.

Shouldn't take long for the photos and YouTube video to appear.

Lack of Support For Vulnerable People.

The case of Gemma Hayter highlights a lack of social service care that I'm all too aware of, having battled and failed to get social services to accept some small responsibility to provide ongoing help for my son.

I sympathise with her bereaved family at the lack of care for vulnerable adults. Higher functioning autistics, amongst other disability groups are amongst the most vulnerable and most easily abused in society.

The problem is, the support system has a huge support gap that allows adults that appear to be self-supporting but naive and vulnerable to fall through. This reminds me very much of my dealings with social srvices over the years.

If the adult doesn't have a learning disability, they don't qualify for support. I was told by Oxford social Services that their limit was an IQ of 75. Below that they would provide LD support, above that they wouldn't.

The only resort then is to try  the mental health support team. But again in my case Oxford would only support people with a recognised mental health problem. So you get support if you were okay and then contracted some for of psychosis, but if you were born with your condition, you were exempt from support.

Even when I moved to the South Coast, things didn't change as the policy was the same here.

There is a huge number of adults that need support from social services but don't receive it. In the bad old days they may have been locked up in institutions, which was obviously wrong. But so is leaving them to be predated upon by the less scrupulous in society.

In line with my previous post about the state providing less, this is one instance where the state has gone too far in cutting services. In the past they would have paid for staff to run institutions to look after the vulnerable. These days "Care in the Community" means councils absolve themselves of responsibility and they receive no care at all.

I would hope that the vulnerable are a more deserving case for funding than Latvian Nose Flute Players. Maybe local authorities should sort out their priorities.

Pro-Euro Integration Agenda Evolving

I said it weeks ago I think in a comment on another blog: The problems of the Euro zone, far from being an opportunity for our government to renegotiate powers back to the UK, will instead be used by those pushing for further integration to force us to meld into the mire across the channel.

This weekend we've had Blair putting his oar in, Barosso telling the UK what they should be doing amongst others.

To my mind there is an agenda being set: will we be forced into Euro membership, or will it be done by stealth? Will the agenda be that we're joining the Euro to save all the other Euro countries, in an attempt to pander to our sense of fair play?

Who knows, but I can see a trend forming over this weekend and given the pro-European  Parliament we have at the moment, who would be able to stop the trend from forming into a plan and from there action?

How Did we Get Here? What is the State for?

There's been a lot of talk over the years of "cuts". i.e. cutting back public services. The thing is, when I was a kid, public services delivered a whole lot less than they are expected to deliver today.

Decades ago, the council was expected to deliver the basic public services: education, refuse collection, Fire, ambulance, police, etc; plus provide a basic social service like providing council houses.

Over the decades of my life, local councils have moved into providing a whole raft of added services. Every minority demands the provision of a public-funded community centre, social work extends into every aspect of our lives, environmental health has grown to support increasing EU legislation. The oft-maligned equality diversity officer is another position dreamed up within my lifetime.

Essentially, local government has extended beyond the expectations of my generation and those before me.

Today, under the current economic climate, we really need a re-evaluation of our expectations of what government is about, what it really needs to be doing and what it really shouldn't be involved in.

Government, both local and national should be involved in providing the things we couldn't possibly do on our own, like the armed forces, but shouldn't be sponsoring one-legged Latvian nose flute players.

Of course in between, there's a whole area that should also be up for debate. But strangely, there is silence.

So Let me Get this Straight....

The banks royally screw things up so that banks and then countries end up in massive amounts of debt. We pour money into the banks, but it gets us nowhere and we see no benefit from it, and now the countries that are worst hit now look like they're having senior banking figures installed in charge of government.

Simply the banks fucked up and let everyone overstretch their finances, the banks did it as well, then when the shit hit the fan the banks and the countries became insolvent and now the big central banks are blackmailing the governments (i.e. do as we say or you won't get any bailout money) into installing bankers as government figureheads.

Am I being thick or is this a coup detat? It sure looks like one.

After all for these moves to have any democratic legitimacy, then the governments should be dissolved and then the new regime should fight for election by the people just like any political party.

Just something to Ponder....

There's currently talk of Germany wanting to change the terms of various EU treaties, mainly to get them off the hook financially for bailing out the Euro.

Its being put about in Conservative circles that this may be an opportunity for Britain to claw back power from the EU by requesting concessions in return for voting the way Germany wants.

However, what if after careful consideration the majority of EU nations, led by Germany decided that the best course of action would be for every EU country to join the EU?

What would we do then, given that the majority of the 27 democratically elected governments of the EU had decided democratically to divvy out the riches of the other members? How could we go against the democratic will of the European people?

Would our pro-EU Parliament be royally in the mire? Would they discard their promises, roll over and vote to enter the Euro Zone? You betcha!

The more I look at the past week, I can see that Papandreyou knows how to work the EU machine to his country's advantage far better than our slovenly, craven government.

Greeks are not to be Trusted with Democracy, Just like every EU Citizen.

The Greek people are not to be trusted with a referendum. Sound familiar?

The totally undemocratic, unelected, unfair and unlawful EU political elite have told yet another country that they cannot have a say in how their country is run.

Instead the MUST submit to EU rule. No ifs, no buts.

You tell me if the moniker EUSSR is apt or not. I believe it is. We are ruled by an elite that are shit scared of the people they lord over having any chance of wrestling control back from them. Any and every opportunity to reinstate a democratic voice for the population must be crushed.

Looks like Papandreou might do the decent thing and resign. Hopefully that might fuck things up for the EU elite politically long enough to give Greece a bit more breathing space before the EU bailiffs move in and demand that the country's assets be stripped for sale to pay off debts.

There's a Mess, Then There's a Right Royal Mess.

The Greek/French/German/Italian Euro problem has escalated to the level of lunacy. How Papandreou can say on the one hand he wants to give the Greek people a referendum on the Bailout (upon which depends their continued membership and possibly existence of the Eurozone), and on the other hand says the referendum won't be about whether Greece stays in or leaves the Eurozone astounds me.

If the Greeks voted not to accept the bailout measures, then there will be no bailout; without a bailout, Greece will default; if they default, they will have to leave the Euro zone; if Greece leaves the Euro zone, then the other weak countries will come under pressure; if they all come under pressure, the Germans won't be able to bail them all out; when that happens, the Euro collapses.

Like a string of dominoes toppling, one follows the other to the inevitable collapse. I'm not sure that the members of the Euro zone can wait until Greece's referendum: the markets might already be moving to force their hand.

Severe losses across the board might galvanise EU governments to adopt a different plan. The Euro might be too expensive a luxury for them, or at least Greece's membership will be.

The next week is critical. It may be Europe won't be the same afterwards.

Complete Bollocks.

I got an email reply last week from my MP David Wllletts explaining why he voted against my wishes and against the motion for a referendum on the EU.

I deleted it in disgust, as it was the usual "In Europe, not ruled by Europe", "better in than out", "we'll renegotiate powers back from the EU" bollocks that the Tories have been peddling this past week.

First off, lets look at "In Europe, not ruled by Europe". This is such a disingenuous phrase that it has no credibility. 

Lets strip it down. Is the statement saying that we can be part of the EU but not ruled by them? Well sorry, thats a fallacy. By being in Europe we submit to a whole raft of treaties (Rome, Maastricht, Lisbon amongst others) that cede power from our government to Brussels. Make no mistake, in critical areas of law, commerce, regulation and virtually every aspect of our daily lives, the EU has ownership. This means that our own government cannot go against rulings made by the EU. To do so would result in punishments such as fines and sanctions, etc. Even the Queen has to defer to the EU.

If your ruler, head of state, Prime Minister and Government have to abide by rules made up someone else, doesn't that mean that they are ruled by them? If they have to abide by past and future rules made by the EU, then we are ruled by them. End of Story. 

There is no compromise, no mechanism to repatriate powers back to the UK. I would like someone to convince me otherwise, but as far as I know treaties are binding and the big daddy of them all, the Lisbon treaty has that catch all in it condemning us to agree to all future treaties.

Now lets look at "Better in than Out". 

Well, lets look at two countries that rely on Europe for trade: Norway and Switzerland. Neither of them can be considered to be starving because they refuse to suckle at the teat of the EU. Switzerland could be very badly off as it is landlocked and surrounded by EU member states, but still thrives. You'd think if EU membership was so important that Switzerland, cut off from access to the sea and trade with non-EU countries would wither and die, but it doesn't. Mainly because it continues to trade with the EU states, but is not ruled by their overbearing and hideously expensive beaurocracy (and their hideously expensive social engineering project, the Euro). The same goes for Norway, although they have the ability to trade independently of the EU if they chose, thanks to them having access to the sea. 

Two countries on the periphery of the EU that continue to thrive. So are we really better of in the EU than out of it? Or is it (as I suspect) the politicians that are better off thanks to the thousands of well-paid jobs that have been created within the EU edifice?

We'll renegotiate our relationship with the EU and repariate powers back to the UK. Will you now? And just how will you convince a working majority of the other 20-odd countries in the EU to vote your way?

Because thats the only way any changes will be made to our relationship with the EU. We are not masters of our own destiny any more. The years of a single country having a veto in the EU has long gone. Therefore we have to convince more than half of the 27 countries that make up the EU to vote the same way. Just as difficult as herding cats, except these cats are now endebted to the Germans and will vote any way the Krauts want.

So fat chance of that happening then. 

Of course our government will huff and puff, put on a bit of a show and then declare its useless, shrug their shoulders and say we have to abide by the playground rules. At this point its salient to note that empty vessels make most noise...

Anyway, as you can imagine, David Willetts has not enamoured himself to me. Not that he cares, having now successfully acquired a nice fat expense account, a nice fat top up in the form of a ministerial allowance and also a huge fat pension , if the the majority of his voters think as I do that he's just another useless party-first, toe the line, fuck the voters twat and give him the boot.

Owned

It seems the EU's answer to the Euro crisis, is more EU; more regulation. more interference, more oversight, more control... of those countries that the prime movers in the EU (okay, Germany) see as responsible for the Euro crisis.

A financial coup in all but name, Euro-zone countries will be required to produce their fiscal plans to the EU for oversight and approval. Failure to comply with agreed austerity plans will not be tolerated.

Rather than jackbooted stormtroopers, the countries of the Eurozone will be occupied  and overseen by financial EU beaurocrats.The EU superstate is another notch closer.

Now the Europhiles here in the UK are squeaking that we will be left behind: this closed financial shop, this snug club will shut us out and leave us in the cold. Their rosy tinted glasses show them the Eurozone running away with rampant growth.... Pie in the sky stuff when you see the depth and breadth of the problems the Euro is suffering.

The point is coming where we will be better off out of the EU. Either we are in it and in it completely, part of the EU superstate, or we are out of it. David Cameron and William Hague's idea that we can be in Europe but not ruled by Europe won't wash. In or out, that will be the bold, stark choice.

Its quite obvious that being out of the EU is the better choice. We can still trade with the EU bloc, there is no reason we can't continue or relationship on a trading basis. If the EU placed barriers in our way, the the WTO would soon apply sanctions. We are after all as the political elite keep telling us, part of a global trading network.

There would be many benefits to being outside the EU: we would regain control of our fisheries, we would not be beholden to propping up the Euro by back door so-called " financial stability" mechanisms. We would be able to regain control of our labour market and would be freed of much unnecessary EU red tape.

The pros do outweigh the cons, much more than they did back in 1975 when the public were last granted a referendum on the EU. There is much to commend our removal from EU control. But only those outside the EU-bribed political elite can see it.

The Catalyst

There is currently a great level of discontent with government and the political elite in this country, greater than even the Thatcher Years.

People I wouldn't have imagined criticising the government are now openly saying things must change.

All it needs is a catalyst, an act, or a person to bring the disparate rays of apathy and resentment into a focussed beam of dissent and positive action.

It will happen, the catalyst will come and I will be watching out for it. It will be one of my happiest days.

Democracy or Dictatorship? You Decide

All the major parties have now said they will whip MPs to vote against Tory MP David Nuttall's bill to force a referendum on EU membership.

This is exactly what I've been saying for many years on this blog and elsewhere that effectively we live in a one-party state. There is no choice other than to continue with the staus quo.

If there was true democracy there would be a free vote for MPs in Parliament and there would also be a referendum; a referendum promised by David Cameron before the last election which he reneged on.

Membership of the EU is one area where our government know they will lose and they are scared of allowing us to vote. Well, until there are enough east European immigrants to sway a vote probably.

The thing is, across the country, across a whole swathe of our lives from work, home, shopping; in fact every aspect of our lives, the EU has jammed its interfering sticky fingers. Some of it is good, but the majority of rules, regulations and standards brought about by the EU have either been petty or unwarranted, or down right disastrous for the UK. The prime example being the common fisheries policy, which has allowed foreign fishermen to rape UK seabeds and decimate our fishing fleet for foreign gain.

In every aspect of our dealings with the EU, we have come worst off. I cannot think of a single incidence where the UK has benefitted in a significant way from an EU ruling. Where is the fairness in that? If we've surrendered our seabeds, where is the compensation?

The EU as an institution is unfair, undemocratic, unrepresentative and unwanted by the majority of UK citizens. We have to leave in order to avoid being bled dry by our European neighbours.

For the UK government to frustrate a vote on the issue shows their contempt for democracy and fairness. If ever there was a battle line drawn between the political elite and the common people, this is it. It is an issue that we must insist on and force upon our government.

I've written to my MP expressing my wishes on this matter. Have you?

UPDATE.

As the debate has been moved forward to Monday, I assume hoping to forestall any large public lobbying, emailing your MP is the only way to get in touch with them in time. I recommend the theyworkforyou web site as an easy way to get in touch with your MP and making your views known to them.

Why DO People Support Political Parties?

Watching the conference season unfolding over the last few weeks made me wonder: why do all the activists and party members support their political parties?

After all, these days each individual party seems to have lost sight of their original purpose: being advocates for their particular niche of the population. These days all the parties appear to do is promote and serve themselves and their financial backer's interests rather than any external chunk of the population.

I just wondered why those dewey-eyed masses keep turning up to party conferences actually do what they do? Are they delusional? Do they not see and feel what everyone else in the country sees and feels: a self-serving political system totally out of touch with ordinary people?

Or are they (as I suspect) a raft of hired professional audiences? Party employees, lobbyists and (in the case of Labour) Union reps on fully-paid junkets? This, I suspect is the truth of the matter: no-one else in the country has any connection with or interest in political parties any more. They no longer represent the interests of the people, but instead the needs of a small clique of corporate and financial interests (and I include Unions in that clique as they really no longer represent the interests of their members or if they do, they do it with a hugley expensive overhead).

We need a new start in politics.

One of the Gallagher Brothers Talks Sense Shock.

I'd advise people to watch this video of Noel Gallagher talking about UK politics and the riots. He's someone who actually "gets it". Considering he once luvvied up to Labour, his current contempt for the party and his statement that all politicians are the same is the same as the rest of us feel.

Do We Really Need to Cut Front Line Services?

I was listening this week on the radio to a number of volleys between the Government and the Labour opposition.

Basically the fact that Tory "cuts" are causing front line services to be scrapped. Instead Labour would have us believe that they have the solution to the answer which is... I dunno really, because their so-called solutions have no basis in reality, are a bit vague and frankly involve not actually cutting anything as far as I can see.

Anyway, back to the topic: would Labour actually do any better?

Well frankly, no. The problem is that what the government and ordinary people want is for front line services to remain, but be delivered in the most cost-effective and efficient manner. Normally in a private company, this usually involves trimming off any excess fat in the organisation. Usually getting rid of a layer or two of middle management does the trick. What happens is that upper layers of management have to work harder for the same money (i.e. more efficiently) and the lowest ranks in the organisation continue to provide the same service as before.

The problem with trying to trim the fat in the public sector is how things are organised and funded. Central government may provide grants to local government, but it has no control over how that money is spent. One of the ways central government aims to reduce local government waste and instil a regime of efficiency is by reducing the money it gives to local government. Westminster then crosses its fingers and prays that the town and city councils see the light, accept the reduction and find more efficient ways of working.

Of course local government does exactly the opposite and just cuts front line services. Why? Because its those same middle managers that would be cut in the private sector that are making the decisions about what to cut in the public sector. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas and a middle manager isn't going to recommend he be made redundant in order to make the council more efficient. Instead he'll chop a few underlings from the wage bill, those same underlings that are at the coalface, providing front line services.

The Cleggeron Search Continues.

Scientists tending the battery of instruments surrounding the Conservative Party Conference in Manchester have yet to detect the Cleggeron, but their findings have shown the particle to be more complex than previously anticipated.

Quantum physicists are excited by the discovery that the Cleggeron exhibits different behaviour depending on the observer's location and political tendencies.

Initial observations show that when the two nuclei of the Cleggeron are apart, the exist in two separate realities, which provide a perfect environment for the aspirations of the observer of each nuclei. When the two nuclei come into close proximity, the two alternate realities create a third reality, totally at odds with any scientifically proven and observable reality. Scientists have cheekily assigned this third reality the name "cloud cuckoo land" for its astonishingly perverse properties.

Scientists Attempt to Finally Prove Alternate Realities.

With the advent of the UK Political Party Conference Season, scientists are looking forward to detecting and measuring a variety of physical anomalies that occur annually around conference time.

The very obvious alternate realities that political parties exists inside provides an opportunity for scientists to observe this quantum phenomenon. "The divergence from quantifiable scientific reality is measured in units called Browns" said a top scientist. "Normal people exist in a reality with a divergence measured in femtoBrowns, whereas politicians normally exist several milliBrowns away from true reality". Thanks to the Euro crisis along with the UK and US financial problems, scientists hope conferences this year will generate a reality a whole centiBrown away from that which normal people observe, although that level of divergence could cause problems. Its been theorised that at that level of divergence, politicians will honestly believe black is a shade of apple white." We have to get to the level of a full Brown in order for politicians to swear black is actually brilliant white, but each year we're getting closer" said a graduate assigned to the project.

Another scientists was quoted "This is the best opportunity we get to detect and observe alternate realities: the reality the major political parties exists in is so different from the the reality the rest of the population exist in, this observable alternate reality allows us to measure it's properties and attempt to explain its existence."

Scientists are this year set to investigate how an alternate universe with such a huge divergence from our own reality can co-exists with ours without the two annihilating each other, as well as explaining the ability of members of political parties to move from one reality to the next with little more than the loss of credibility and an inflated bank balance.

Its not only those out to prove quantum effects that converge on party conferences: climate scientists too are busy studying the effects of the release of so much hot air into the atmosphere. Their measurements could hopefully have an effect on future empty rhetoric. A spokesman said "Its our goal to quantify the effects of this massive release of hot air into the environment at autumn time. Previous measurements have shown it extends the summer by at least a month and causes a drastic effect on the hibernation patterns of wildlife. In future we hope to be able to lobby the government to legislate against empty rhetoric"

All the major parties declined to comment on any phenomena surrounding party conferences, nor on any prospective legislation to combat their environmental impact.

UPDATE:  Scientists at the University of Manchester hope next week to detect the Cleggeron, a theoretical particle with twin nuclei which is the force that binds alternate realities together.

The Continuing Rape of the Poor

It has to be said: the continuing pouring of money into the busted banking system is nothing more than the transfer of wealth from the world's poorest to the world's richest.

The muttering about restarting quantative easing (printing money or that evil of the eighties; increasing the money supply) is really a discussion about pillaging the savings and pensions of the previous working generation and the savings of the current generation.

We are paying through the nose for our generation's massive fiscal mismanagement and our children and grandchildren will be paying for this generation's largesse for decades to come.

IT HAS TO STOP.

Science on the Brink of Shattering News.

It could be possible that the speed of light isn't the absolute limit defined by Einstein.

Scientists at CERN have detected neutrinos apparently moving faster than the speed of light. If their observations are correct, it would shatter current scientific theory.

Of course the observations could be incorrect, but if they are, it would open up a whole new line of theoretical science. For instance, how do the neutrinos travel so fast? Do they travel in a different dimension?

My pet theory is that there's a level of this universe that has yet to be discovered. The universe we know about currently is still full of stuff. Its possible the neutrinos pass through a layer of space (lets call it sub-space) where they can travel unhindered by other matter and therefore can travel faster than light.

However other research in Japan shows that neutrinos travelling between two points change between three types (electron, muon and tau) which could be a result of their travelling between our space and the space they travel faster than light in. Or could be an indicator of their travelling/switching between universes. Who knows, but if the observations are proven, we are set to see an interesting new area of research open up.

What does this mean? Well firstly, this shattering of one of the biggest theories in science shows science is not absolute or "settled": we are continuing to learn and discover new and wonderful things.

Second and more importantly are the practical applications. Forget the fantasists and their time machine rants. If neutrinos could be generated in a way that modulates their production from an electronic signal and a detector could be made to receive that modulated neutrino stream, then we would have a new electronic transmission medium. One that would be able to travel through the earth unimpeded as well as space and would be virtually instantaneous over very long distances. The applications for instantaneous long distance comms are immense. For instance controlling unmanned planetary probes in real-time from Earth without the need for a crew thanks to instantaneous transmission and receipt of signals.

Anyway, it could just be an observational error.

Martin McGuinness a Cert for President?

There's a sense of incredulity in the mainstream media that a self-confessed ex-terrorist would contemplate running for president of a country.

However, I seem to be the only person that thinks he's got more than an even chance of winning.

Currently in the Republic of Ireland there's a pretty strong anti-EU (and to be honest a wider anti-Europe) sentiment. The people of Ireland have come to realise that their politicians are themselves ruled by the unelected elite of the EU commission. Watching scores of beaurocrats stroll into their parliament and dictate terms has stuck in the Irish conciousness.

So, enter stage left a politician that has form successfully fighting against foreign power, even to the point of using violent force. In my eyes he's a cert to win.

The only issue I have win Martin McGuinness is that the years he's already had at the political trough may mean he's already seduced by the largesse of the political arena. He may just fall into line rather than fight.

Only time will tell, but even voting him into power may be the shock the eurocrats need. If Ireland is capable of voting an ex-terrorist into high office as a sign of defiance, there's really no limit to what other shocks they could produce politically.

The Whys and Wherefores of Looting.

There is currently much speculation as to the reasons for the outbreak of riots and looting this summer. The reasons are many, but they are also simple.

First off, it was hot, sunny weather. It was guaranteed that there would be no rain. The sort of evenings you'd spend out in the garden, or if you don't have a garden, out looting with your mates.

Second, (if you are in the first wave of looters) you are virtually guaranteed no comeback. Police response times were extremely slow (it took a full day to amass a strong enough force to cope) so as long as you were careful to cover your face, cover your tracks and be cctv aware then you had a good chance of getting away with it.

Third, even if you were caught, the sentence would be light. An inconvenience in reality. If you did get sent to jail, it was no worse than being on a sink estate and going through the ignomy of the benefits system. In jail you don't have to keep filling out endless forms, your meals are prepared for you, etc.

Fourth, everyone is at it. Even Police are scamming the taxpayer by abusing credit cards or doing dodgy deals. ACPO sell information from the Police Computer... MPs fiddle expenses, civil servants abuse their state credit cards,. Councillors do dodgy deals and backhanders, council officials award themselves vast, unwarranted salaries. Don't call the underclass immoral when everyone else, all the way to the top is just as immoral. When those at the top set an example, then they can pontificate about morality. But I digress: if everyone else is bending the rules or breaking the law, why not the underclass?

Fifth, the lack of responsibility and respect today. It used to be that children feared their parents, but not thanks to liberal social engineering, its the other way round. Do-gooders can't see the benefit that discipline in the home brings to society. Instead they emasculate parents and allow children to run free, with no moral compass, sense of respect or responsibility. Instead we have a breed of sociopaths that care nothing for anyone else but themselves. They can quite happily rob, riot, rape and murder and not feel remorse.

These are the things we need to address. At the same time they are simple and complicated to resolve. Simple because it only requires simple changes to society to turn things around. Complicated because it involves the whole of society from the top down.

It took decades to ruin this country and it with take decades more to pull it from the mire.

The New Climategate.

Hopefully this new episode in the Man Made Global Warming Scam Saga will start to push the emphasis back onto true, observable science and away from computer modelling.

As I've stated before computer models are not reality. If they don't match up to observed reality then they are flawed and have to be modified or binned. For a group of scientists to say that observations are flawed because they don't fit the models is ludicrous in the extreme.

Anyway, here's hoping common sense breaks out, but I doubt it: there's now too much legislation and money invested in CO2 kidology for it to die quickly.

9/11 Conspiracies and Common Sense.

I like to think I have an open mind and evaluate all the available data before coming (usually) to a correct conclusion. I used to earn a nice wedge of money using those skills until 9/11 happened, a little too close for comfort (we lost a guy in the twin towers where I worked and only two weeks before had a couple of my engineers in New York. Its also possible that a few weeks later I myself would have been visiting the WTC), which made me do a complete about turn and chose family before career.

So I have an especial interest in the theories surrounding 9//11.

Of all the conspiracies, there is one that to me has relevance even today. That is, how could the WTC buildings collapse in the way they did on the day? I say that because all the buildings, including WTC7 fell in an apparently controlled manner. That is, they fell straight down, all the floors collapsing down perfectly on each other.

Now, structural engineers and demolition experts will say that this is an extremely difficult thing to do. Masses of preparation has to be made in order to weaken a building so it collapses on itself. If the preparation isn't done, the building can half collapse, or the top half may shear off and fall off the side; there are innumerable scenarios that could happen if the building isn't demolished correctly.

First off, lets look at the twin towers: yes they were hit by airliners which imparted huge kinetic energy into the structure. The jet fuel also created massive fires which could have weakened the structure. But the fact is that I would expect once the collapse had started, for the floors below the collapse to offer some resistance to the falling floors above and therefore see some sideways movement of the debris as the upper floors slide off the top of the lower floors.

On the day it was clear there was no sideways movement at all: the floors simply pancaked one on top of the other.

The same goes for WTC7, which also fell straight down, after failing structurally we are told, by fires burning in the building. Again, the similarities with a controlled demolition are amazing, the building falling within its own footprint. No lateral movement and therefore no resistance to the falling concrete is evident. Of course 9/11 was an exceptional day, but the laws of physics don't usually take a day off. Either the building design was flawed (and by inference so is every other similar building) or there was something exceptional going on that we have yet to be told about.

So, keeping an open mind, at the very least there appears to be issues regarding the safety of high-rise buildings when subjected to quite ordinary fires, as in the case of WTC7. The only extrordinary thing on the day was the fires in WTC7 were allowed to burn uncontrolled for hours. But the thing is, if there's a risk of building collapse due to fire damage, would you risk putting firefighters into that building to control the fire? If the building is structurally sound at one second and then an apparent blancmange the next, how long do you risk lives to control a building fire and what point do you pull firefighters out?

There are lots of questions that have not satisfactorily been answer even after a decade:

1. How can buildings made of reinforced concrete collapse in such a way from fire damage alone (as in the case of WTC7)?

2. What research have building regulators done to mimic this behaviour in high-rise buildings and develop measures to prevent it recurring?

3. What extra provisions have building regulators put in place since 9/11 to protect existing high-rise buildings from fire-initiated collapse given the obvious weakness?

4. What new building regulations have regulators put in place since 9/11 to prevent a recurrence of the fire-initiated collapse in new-build high-rise buildings?

5. Why isn't the apparent risk of high-rise building collapse better and more widely understood in the general population, if it's the certainty that the official 9/11 line takes?

6. How many people's lives are at risk every day from similar collapses?

Burn the Heretics!

It seems that some scientists are being castigated by the climate change lobby. It appears the paper hadn't been properly peer reviewed or published in a publication that deals in climate change amongst other things.

Which of course seems rank hypocrisy considering the climate change lobby get up to the same themselves.

It just goes to show the power of money poured into the scientific community and the level that the religion of climate change has risen to, despite the lack of concrete proof.

Global Warming WTF?? Moment

Apparently we now have to limit CO2 emission, not because we're creating global warming, but because it flags up to extraterrestrials that the planet is inhabited. Leg-Iron has a link to the Daily Mail article as part of his post about the need to find a new bogeyman.

I know that man made global warming is a load of bollocks, but this is a whole new level of lunacy.

I mean, one of the scenarios is that eco-friendly aliens are so disgusted with our CO2 emission that they destroy the earth. Now as far fetched as aliens are, lets say a bunch of eco-loons from Andromeda really do arrive here. Would they decide that to save the earth they need to vapourise it? Where's the sense in that?

Just yet more scaremongering from the AGW nut-jobs, except they've really excelled themselves at scraping the barrel for excuses to tax us into oblivion this time.

Policy Undercurrents and Sentencing Madness

Many things are crawling out of the woodwork in the aftermath of last week's riots.

First, lets look at the case of the two guys jailed for four years for inciting a riot. This was a couple of guys who put up messages on facebook supposedly "organising" a riot in Northwich. That no-one unsuprisingly attended. In Northwich of all places. If any of you have been to Northwich, the chances of anything happening there let alone a riot are so slim its ludicrous to suggest that they did it for anything other than a joke.

But they got four years: a custodial sentence that has yet to be matched or served by the majority of the people that actually physically attended a riot, caused criminal damage or looted.

Where is the sense in that?

Why are people using social media being punished so disproportionately?

Do the government want more riots? Because that's what they'll have if the lenient sentencing continues. The rioter and looters will risk-assess the situation and realise that a few hours community service is well worth the price of a 50 inch HD LCD TV.

Those that rioted on the first couple of nights and got away scott free certainly will.

Does the government want more control of the internet and especially social media and blogging sites? By their words over the past few days, absolutely. They want to curtail the rights and freedoms of every one of us  on the internet that speaks out in opposition to them and their political chums, especially those in the EU.

Which neatly brings me onto curfews, which is something else  the political elite are clamouring for. Take the scum off the streets eh? But curfews will not be specific, they can't be. Everyone thinks they're good ideas as long as they don't apply to them. Tough, we'll have to have blanket curfews in certain areas in order to make it work. Everyone will love a curfew right up until they're not allowed out of their front door. But by then the damage will be done, the law will be on the statute books and the Police will have the power to keep you kettled in your own home.

Internet censorship, curfews, political parties so close together you might as well call it a one-party state.

Just how much evidence do the public need before they realise the authoritarian state we are creating? Probably not before its too late, because the sick thing is they're the ones calling for it.

Afghani Citizens Better Protected by UK Law than UK Ones.

The UK is a signatory to the Geneva Convention. A set of conventions on the conduct of nations at war.

Specifically, for this post is the Fourth Geneva Convention and its section on Collective Punishment.

The Fourth Geneva convention prohibits the use of collective punishments by occupying forces. This is supposed to prevent actions such as perpetrated by the Nazis during WW2 where whole villages were held to account and punished due to the actions of a single individual. For instance where people were executed or incarcerated for the actions of a single resistance fighter or group of fighters. Collective punishment is specifically named as a war crime by the convention.

As a signatory to the Geneva Conventions and in our de-facto role as an occupying force in Afghanistan, we are prevented from using collective punishment in that country. I know that the conventions are supposed to prevent major atrocities, but the rule still applies: you can't punish a group of people for the actions of an individual: its a war crime. Maybe not on the same scale as mass genocide, but its a crime nontheless.

You could argue that the Geneva Conventions don't apply to the Afghan conflict because its not strictly a war between two opponents, but the UK armed forces hold themselves to the standards required by the Conventions as well as the Human Rights Act. It would be a very brave lawyer that would argue against the Conventions applying in Afghanistan.

Yet back here in the UK, there is no protection against collective punishment, hence the eviction notice placed on the family of an accused (not convicted) rioter even though they had no part in the crime.

Therefore, it seems Afghan civilians have more rights in law than UK civilians.

Of course the media, baying loudly for the blood of rioters will overlook this anomaly, but those caught up in the melee won't.

God help us if any of the houses vacated by evicted families are given to immigrant families. It'll just add salt to the wounds of those that already have a grudge against the large numbers of immigrants and there'll be blood on the streets.

Wandsworth Council Open Can of Worms Over Looter Eviction.

Wandsworth council have joined in with the cries for retribution, the baying for looter blood and the general knee-jerk concensus by issuing an eviction order on the family of a boy charged in connection with the rioting and looting last week.

Here is Wandsworth's own press release.

Note first the the son has only been charged. There has been no successful conviction, only an allegation. The case has yet to be proved in court. So the son may yet be found not guilty, but the council have still pressed ahead with serving the eviction order? I think there would be a successful claim by the family if that was so. I also wonder whether there is an issue of contempt of court in that a legal body has pre-empted the results of a current court case.

Another point: is this policy only going to be applied with such vigour for looters and rioters and their families? What about rapists, murderers, petty thieves, violent husbands and wives, etc. Would the children of a convicted paedophile then be evicted because their parent assaulted them or possibly the children of neighbours?

Where do you start evictions and just where do you stop? These are not black and white situations and the clunking fist of local government is doomed to failure and ridicule in this matter unless it begins to work in a more subtle way.

I've noticed that Sky News has amended its script to carefully point out that the person involved has only been charged and not yet been convicted of being involved in the rioting. Possibly a way round a contempt of court charge?

Wandsworth council could be made to look a right bunch of twats over this.

Zero Tolerance?

If in future there's going to be a zero tolerance policy on gang members, petty criminals, drug dealers and all the other human dross that afflicts our inner cities and sink estates, lets also have zero tolerance in other areas.

Zero tolerance on illegal expenses claims by MPs, zero tolerance on abuse of power by senior Police officers, zero tolerance on all the other petty crime perpetrated by those who think they are above the law.

Zero tolerance for the poor and the privileged elite alike. Or else the problem won't go away.

Organisation of a Riot

Its being reported that the riots are being organised and the evidence suggests the Police are being run rings round.

Who are these people organising the riots? For what reason?

I'm reluctant to don the tinfoil hat and shout conspiracy, but in a atmosphere of impending loss of finance and power by the Police, is it a coincidence that suddenly we get very organised and orchestrated disorder on this scale, on a moments notice, across the country?

Blame the Parents?

On the news this evening there have been more than a few calls of "where are the parents?" when it comes to dealing with the rioters.

True, some rioters are of an age where they should be under parental control, but the problem is the state decrees that children cannot be sufficiently punished by parents. Give your kid a slap and social services could be on your doorstep issuing edicts as to how to should parent your child.

In effect by meddling in this way the state has taken control of the parenting of these kids and it is failing. It is failing because the state cannot begin to control each and every child individually.

It should be done by the parents of the children and the state should leave them to the job of parenting instead of trying to get involved.

Like any other area of family life it gets involved in, the state has royally fucked things up and it is reaping its reward.

Liquid Nightclub In Southsea Burns Down.

The disused Liquid nightclub in Southsea burned down this evening, sparking dozens of rumours of riots. No rioting, but instead a jolly time was had sat on the beach in the sunshine eating chips and watching the action.

Riots: I don't Condone, but I Understand Why.

What happens when you disenfranchise a huge number of young people? What happens when their political voice is ignored? What happens? You get riots.

Lets set one thing straight: I do not condone the looting that has been happening over the past few days.

However, I understand why it is happening. I understand the frustration of an underclass ignored by society. Failed by the education system that refuses to instil discipline and fails to inspire, failed by the immigration system that allows better educated foreigners to take masses of UK jobs. I understand the frustration of an unemployment system that is designed to lock you in rather than empower your release.

I understand a society that prevents parents from disciplining their children sufficiently, I understand a government, both local and national that harasses and demonises them at ever opportunity.

I understand the frustration of seeing society revolve ever tighter round the great god retail, seeing huge temples erected to consumption and the spending of money, but be soundly locked out of it. I understand why  rioters would want what everyone else has.

I understand the need to be heard, to get attention, to show people you exist and can push back as much as you have been pushed about by society.

I understand the poor example provided by the political elite, whose behaviour should be beyond reproach, yet who defraud the voters, who see no wrong in illegal activity, who ignore the masses and refuse to allow them to express their views in a fair way.

I understand that left alone, with no support, no guidance and no discipline, that these youngsters will become feral, have no morals, no sense of respect and no remorse for their actions and the destruction they have caused.

Society has created a generation of sociopaths and we are now reaping the whirlwind.

Thin Blue Line

I occurred to me watching the trouble around the country last night (I hesitate to call them riots) that the troublemakers are missing a trick.

So far they've leant that several distributed hotspots spreads out the Police, thins them out and prevents them from doing any effective Policing.

But what they're missing is that in each area there are far more looters than there are Police. Once they learn they outnumber and can overwhelm the Police in each of these areas, then there will be real trouble. What would be the next move by the government if we begin to see Police swamped and beaten up (or worse) during these outbursts of violence? Would those images spur on more lawlessness around the country once other groups learn the same tactics.

The Media are Not Disinterested or Independent Reporters

In days gone by, reporters and their entourage of camera and sound men would be left alone by mobs, classed as independent observers of the action.

However, today's rioter is a savvy individual and understands that the media is no longer an independent observer: their footage can be commandeered by the police and used as evidence.

Hence we see the mob actively preventing the media use cameras and attacks on reporters and cameramen over the past couple of days.

The media are seen quite rightly as just another arm of the state: their biased reporting and the use of their footage by the Police confirms it. Today's teenager has a lot more nous: they see the bias and skewing of the truth and recognise that the media is actively working against them.

Grabbing Your share of the Loot.

It may be just me, but I see no difference between the looters in Tottenham and the looters we have in national and local government.

Who can blame the underclass for emulating those in power who illegally appropriate expenses, who use their powerful positions inappropriately, and award themselves huge bonuses and pay rises, from money that is not theirs to abuse.

How hypocritical of the political elite to condemn people for doing the same.

There will be No Swift Recovery

I keep trying to bang this home to people, but there will be no quick recovery after the Banking/Debt/Euro Crisis.

Its been three years now and we're still rolling around the precipice, trying to avoid the drop. The world economy has been SERIOUSLY over-valued for almost a decade and the bubble has by no means burst. We HAVE to HAVE a SERIOUS revaluation in the world economy. Its inevitable and the world economy will continue to be a dysfunctional mess without it.

Sad to say only when house prices are at least half of what they are now will I begin to consider the issue of recovery. That's the scale of the revaluation that has to come. It may take another 10 years, but eventually we will get governments that will realise the scale of the problem and actually do something about it. I said three years ago that the current crisis would last a couple of decades and on our present course it looks like I'll be proven right unfortunately.

The recent de-rating of America's credit rating is another slip towards the precipice. It slides and we follow. The lunatics really are in charge of the asylum over there and seem to not have a clue about responsibility to their citizens nor the repercussions of their actions worldwide. Their prevarications over the past week have shown them to be weak and uncertain. Weakness in finance is punished unmercifully and the US is sure to be punished, along with the rest of us.

THE most intelligent thing governments can do right now is to stop throwing money at the problem. Instead borrow the money not to go to banks and bonuses, but to provide a safety net for savers and for those who will lose their jobs. It will cost a fraction of the hundreds of billions we've already committed to the cause which has provided a small halt to the decline. Lets get serious about this: the banks got into this mess on their own and they deserve to fail on their own. Their shareholders may not be happy, but that's life: shares go up and down in value.

It may eventually send a warning shot across the bows of the banking industry to finally become more prudent and start to reduce costs, especially with regard to wages and bonuses.

Final Financial Nosedive?

We've been propping up the busted banks for over three years now. We've poured billions into indebted nations and now we're entering the finale.

The sane people are heading for gold and other safe havens, the insane are proposing to borrow more and try and prop up the rotten system.

It would have been better if the banks that had been sunk by bad debt had been allowed to fail and those with sense not to get involved could pick up the pieces.

Now it really is starting to unravel. American politicians wobbled for a week over increasing their debt and that lack of confidence has been enough to instil panic in the markets, which are starting to nosedive.

This may well be the start of the long-needed global revaluation. It will be rough, but it is necessary. For too long have we lived hyped-up above the true value of our net worth. Houses and taxes need to be reduced to a realistic and affordable level.

Until that radical idea isn't embraced, we'll still trudge along, slowly bleeding to death. We need a target, we need a plan of how to get there and above all we need leadership to get us there. We have the worst of all worlds, we have none of the things that will save us.

A Reply from David Willetts MP

"Thank you for your email of 14th July about the UK's IMF contributions. We are a founding member of the IMF and have responsibilities owing to our continued membership. Member states' contributions to the fund are broadly based on their relative size in the world economy, MPs recently approved increasing the amount of the British money that IMF can borrow from £10.7 billion to £20.15 billion. This is in line with rising contributions of other countries and the proposal was initially agreed in 2009, before the Greek debt crisis.


The IMF has never defaulted on a loan provided to it by a contributing country since its foundation. The IMF enjoys a "preferred creditor status" which essentially means the IMF loans are prioritised and repaid ahead of others. These rules would also apply in the very rare case of a country defaulting. This has been a widely known and respected position amongst member governments as well as other official, and private sector, creditors.


On the eurozone, we believe that the UK should not participate in a new eurozone financial assistance package for Greece. The Prime Minister has recently secured an explicit assurance from the European COuncil that any new programme would be supported by eurozone countries and not the EU as a whole. Eurozone bailouts are a matter for eurozone countries and not us. Thank you for contacting me and making making me aware of your concern on this issue."

So, we already agreed the increased contributions in 2009 but didn't vote on the increase until 2010 eh? I find it hard to believe we would agreed something  during one Parliamement and then wait to vote on it during a different Parliament i.e. after a general election.

The IMF never defaults, which is good, but then if a member country defaults, how do the IMF make up the shortfall? By increasing the interest rates for loans to other countries? How is "preferred creditor status" enforced on a country that cannot or will not pay a loan back? How is paying money to a default risk sound business practice. Why should other countries not linked to Greece be expected to bail them out by increased  interest rates?

We're not contributing anything to the eurozone directly, but what about our obligations to the ECB if they agreed a bailout? What if the EU commission agree a bailout, would the UK be obliged to contribute?

No mention at all about any interest we're paying on this money, so I guess the answer to that is yes. The next question is what rate of interest we're paying on it and what rate the IMF are paying us.

What isn't answered in this letter says a lot.

Lots to look into and research methinks.

Anyone want to comment on it and suggest things I can add to my reply to David Willetts?

Noway Tragedy: The Agenda is being Set

So, the first full working day after the bombing and shooting in Norway and already the agenda is being set.

Anders Brevik supposedly is a far-right nutter, now with speculative links to the EDL and I'm sure there'll be other links to other far right groups in other countries, just to help governments around Europe crack down on the rising nationalist tension in Europe.

No-one in the Left-led media can grasp the fact that he may be a nutter acting totally independently without any outside help. Most are clamouring for a scintilla of evidence that links him with the right and are drooling over any evidence that allows themselves to hype up any an all of these speculative links.

Lets be clear about this: the EU commission and others close to it have said that nationhood and national sovereignty are outdated concepts and the population of the EU must embrace the new status-quo. Nationalists of any shade are not allowed in the new EU socialist super-state.

There is no room in the EU for anyone advocating right of centre politics, you must be centrist or left of centre. This is the new communism, with political parties occupying such a limited spectrum of views, we are living to all intents and purposes a one-party-state. This is not democracy; democracy endeavours to include all opinions of all creeds and political persuasions. It does not enforce a limited bandwidth of political opinions.

If this subversion of democracy and freedom of expression continues, its sadly inevitable that atrocities like the one in Norway will be repeated around Europe as frustration and tensions increase. Ideologies will collide as they fight for dominance. The left are over-powerful in Europe right now and the right, shut out of democracy will end up limited to using violent means to express their views.

What Does the Tragedy in Norway Tell Us?

Mainly that it's very hard to detect a lone nutter with a plan for mass murder. Also its very hard to stop that nutter from carrying out their plan without detecting him in the first place. My condolences go out to the people of Norway affected by the tragedy.

The only solution to the "problem" of lone nutters is big walls and checkpoints around every city. However, we moved on from that centuries ago because as a race, we realised that the risk of getting killed was minimal and therefore acceptable. Even during the IRA bombings in London and Northern Ireland, people went about their daily business knowing that there was a risk of being killed or injured, but that risk was comparatively small.

Of course after those many centuries the relative safety of our cities (I say relative because our cities are certainly NOT safe for certain age/social groups), has lulled us into a state where any threat has to be nullified.

Well, that's the state our politicians are in, because there's now a threat, they will have to be seen to be acting on it. What's the betting that this act of terror will be hijacked by our government for their own purposes?

I'll be watching......

Banking Boiler Fit to Burst?

So the Eurozone leaders have decided on shovelling yet more money onto the fire within the banking boiler.

Common sense says the best option would be for Greece and all the other bankrupt Euro countries to drop-out, default and devalue. Instead yet more money is being thrown at the problem, a typical unimaginative middle-management response to the situation. Nothing radical that would damage the political project that is the Euro, nothing that would indicate a modicum of common sense leadership.

More money is thrown on the fire, never to be seen again. I said years ago that the global economy is highly overvalued and should never have been allowed to inflate to the extent it has. A slow, controlled deflation is the only option , not the constant stoking of the inflationary fire that continues to ravage our economies.

Ah well, it seems people never learn and our leaders will continue to show their stupidity and throw our hard earned cash at the people who pissed it up the wall in the first place.

I'd say bring the popcorn, take a seat and watch the show, except its hurting me and you while its being played out. This show is interactive: and its hurting everyone.

Does anything NOT give you cancer?

With monotonous regularity the medical scientific world spews up some report or other that says that some foodstuff or lifestyle infinitesimally increases the risk of contracting cancer.

But now we're plumbing news depths: being tall increases your risk of cancer.

We're now getting to the stage that soon we'll be told just being alive increases your risk of cancer; which it does, because dead people don't contract cancer, you need live cells to do the mutation and uncontrolled reproduction.

So, the only sure way to beat cancer is die before you get it. Anything else is just being dealt the shitty end of life's long stick. The best way of beating it is living your life to the full and not listening to the scaremongering busybodies  who would have us live our lives wrapped in cotton wool. Then if you do get dealt a dodgy hand from life's deck of cards, you can at least say you had a bloody good time and didn't waste your time on earth.

A New Trend.... Censorship

I'm usually good at spotting trends. When you hear the same or similar language being spoken from different but related spheres, you can get a feeling that a trend is being formed.

So for instance take my last post about David Cameron saying his inquiry into illegal activity will be widened to include social networking as well as traditional media, the huge effort put into discrediting Rupert Murdoch (a credible alternative information source) then add in the line the BBC are taking as reported by Autonomous Mind.

The future trend seems to indicate the government is planning to control the flow of information in future. Be it news, science, politics or whatever, there will be more control and interference. No alternatives will be tolerated of whatever kind. We're moving from an era of  passive information gathering, to an era of more active and controlled provision of information. We've been moving this way within the atmosphere created by terrorism and our armed interventions for some time. Now those with the master plan feel bold enough to outline their plans in public, albeit in alternative vocabulary. But the words are there, in plain sight if you see them.

Its quite plain that we are not far short moving into an era of outright propaganda. Everything you see and hear will be monitored, sanitised and packaged in order to promote the agenda of those in charge. You will not be permitted to hear alternative views.

Some of the Hack-gate End Game Revealed

David Cameron said today the the public enquiry will be widened to include broadcasters and social media to see if they engaged in illegal activity.

Anyone want to bet that this will be used as a back door way to censor blogs, twitter leaks and other internet based political activity?

Just a thought on The Murdoch Issue....

I just had a thought: Rupert Murdoch's fortunes seem to have nosedived since he started nosing around F1.

Coincidence?

Goodwood Festival Of Speed.

A couple of weeks ago I was given an early Birthday present by Mrs D: a ticket to Goodwood Festival of Speed. Being an avowed petrolhead, I thoroughly enjoyed the day. Plenty of noise and speeed, of the sort the health and safety Nazis would quash.

Just a snippet of the day is this, my favourite car of the meeting. A lovely little Alfa Romeo, that looks like a baby Ferarri.

The Political Elite in Disarray?

Or maybe they're just turning on each other as each faction vies for more power.

I've been criticised in the past for saying the Police are too politicised and too cosy with Politicans. "Where is the evidence?" my detractors would say and honestly, I couldn't give them hard procedural evidence, instead citing practical examples where undue political influence seemed to be swaying Police actions and vice versa.  There are numerous examples now where Police investigations into MPs has resulted in a damp squib, and also examples of how the MPs roll over and give the Police ever wider powers at the merest request.

Similarly the other partner of the cosy cabal; the media show how cosy they really are with both the Police and politicians in the way they steadfastly refuse to hold either to account for their actions or inaction.

Its interesting to note that the current crisis has been a long time coming. Threads started to unravel several months ago. One could say the spat between Boris Johnson Sir Iain Blair was indicative of things unravelling. The investigations into government leaks which saw the Police entering Westminster and the arrest of MP Damien Green another. The Telegraph buying the unedited details of MP's expenses and then releasing them caused as we know consternation in Parliament (mainly because they thought they were doing nothing wrong) and the arrest and imprisonment of some of the worst offenders. Others quit Westminster altogether in order to hold onto their ill-gotten gains.

At issue is the reason for all of this posturing and infighting. The main reason is the lack of power. Real power doesn't reside in Westminster any more. The EU controls the legislation and the Mega Banks and Corporations control the economy. Organised crime is international now and well beyond the reach of  the Police and MPs, unable to effect powerful legislation thanks to the omnipresent EU, instead tinker with minor laws in effect reducing the Police to glorified tax collectors and pub-closing-time bouncers. Sure they have helicopters and fast cars, but more often than not, these tools are used to affect tax collecting fines on the public. Such is the importance placed on the job of tax collection placed on the Police by Parliament.

With the withering of Police and Political power, the media have also seen their grasp on the hearts and minds of the elite reduce, with the elite moving into Pan-European and even Global enterprises as the power in Parliament fades. Witness now the huge influence the likes of the IMF, UN and others have on the world stage, along with an infinite number of quangos, committees and NGOs.

One only has to look where the monied classes reside now. Once they craved power in Parliament: double-barrelled names and received prunounciation were de-rigeur. Now you only need to look where those same names and accents have made a home in order to see where the real power resides.

The current commoner infighting might be interesting to some, but it's not the new political paradigm that some in the media would have us believe.

A Letter to David Willetts, My MP.

                                    Thursday 14 July 2011

Dear David Willetts,

I note that on Monday the 11th, you voted to increase our contribution
to the IMF by 9 billion pounds, primarily to help with the economic
crisis in the Euro-zone.

Please can you tell me how the IMF intend to repay this loan, given
that the countries in trouble (for instance Greece) are certain to
default on any money loaned to them?

If the countries the IMF loan to defaulted, would the IMF themselves
default our loan to them, or are they still required to repay it? If
so, how would they raise the finance to repay the loan?

I would also ask you to confirm whether the money provided for this
loan by the government requires the UK exchequer to pay interest on it.

Yours sincerely,

Lets see what sort of reply I get... probably a simple fobbing-off, but you never know.

What made Murdoch Mortal?

The thought at the back of my mind throughout all of the media storm about News International is: what has made Rupert Murdoch so mortal?

For decades he was untouchable, the kingmaker, his support was essential for political success. Politicians crossed him at their peril, lest some tidbit of scandal about them was dragged out into the public domain.

Just how have things turned round so quickly and so fully? What has given our politicians the confidence to go head-to-head with Murdoch and in effect win, given that News International are backing out of the bid for control of BSkyB? What do they have on Murdoch that has wounded him so mortally?

There is more to this affair than meets the eye.

The really serious thing that has been highlighted this week is the unholy alliance between politicians, the press and the justice system. Our elected representatives have for a long time been too cosy with the people that control the media and our justice system in the form of the Police and the CPS are also wrapped up in the cosy cabal.

The prime example is the initial investigation into phone hacking which went nowhere, thanks to limited terms of reference and lack of political and media support. It was destined and probably designed to fail. Months later we now know that the problem was a whole lot broader than the hamstrung inquiry could investigate.

Its quite clear the Politicians, Paparazzi and Police swim in their own cosy cesspool.

Cleaning it up will be a major task, one that the current political system will be unwilling to undertake. We need new brooms to sweep away the shit.